Representing Label Generation Rulesets Using XML
draft-ietf-lager-specification-13
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-08-08
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-07-25
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-07-08
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
2016-07-07
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2016-06-13
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-06-09
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-05-27
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-05-25
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-05-25
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-05-25
|
13 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-05-25
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-05-25
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-05-25
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-05-25
|
13 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-05-25
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-05-24
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-05-23
|
13 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the discussion! |
2016-05-23
|
13 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2016-05-23
|
13 | Kim Davies | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-13.txt |
2016-05-16
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my AD review comments in -12: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lager/current/msg00312.html |
2016-05-16
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-05-16
|
12 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for the changes in -12. I think we're down to one remaining item to discuss. I'll follow up on the earlier email … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for the changes in -12. I think we're down to one remaining item to discuss. I'll follow up on the earlier email where you answered directly to this point. (4) section 12: I don't think this is at all sufficient. Missing aspects include: Imprecise LGRs could result in registration of identifiers that are unexpected in many other protocols, leading to new vulnerabilities; LGRs could be deliberately manipulated so as to create such imprecision, and if I could feed one such to a registry (e.g. via some nice friendly looking git repo) then I could exploit the vuln later for fun and profit - that seems to call for some interoperable form of data integrity and origin authentication (is the lager WG doing that?) and lastly (for now), the XML language defined here is very flexible as noted earlier - I would expect there to be many implementation bugs in new code that attempts to parse this language. So I think the security considerations needs to be re-done really. |
2016-05-16
|
12 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Stephen Farrell |
2016-05-14
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-05-14
|
12 | Kim Davies | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-05-14
|
12 | Kim Davies | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-12.txt |
2016-05-12
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | Please post a new version, even if it only addresses some of the DISCUSS points. |
2016-05-12
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-04-22
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-04-22
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-04-21
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2016-04-21
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] This spec is tackling a hard problem, (machines doing what humans do to classify identifiers), and as a result there are some tricky … [Ballot discuss] This spec is tackling a hard problem, (machines doing what humans do to classify identifiers), and as a result there are some tricky bits here. That inherently hard problem has thrown up a few things I'd like to discuss (though the 1st one is easy:-)... (1) section 5: this says code points MUST be 4 hex digits. What is s/w supposed to do if it sees only 2 hex digits? Should it ignore the range or char element or fail to process the entire LGR document? I think the same issue applies to other uses of 2119 language as well, (e.g. "MUST be treated as an error at the end of p19), so I'd recommend you state some kind of general rule if you can. (2) 5.2: when and not-when etc seem to me to allow for infinitely baroque representations of useless things like: 200D What is parsing s/w supposed to do with structures like that? For example, how would you handle the likes of this or more convoluted but equivalent structures which could be delivered by accident or deliberately? I think the response to this discuss point needs to either be a) all such constructs are automatically detectable and here's why, or else b) here's how s/w can handle that (without crashing or looping forever). Note that I don't think that the "MUST be rejected" at the end of 6.1 provides an answer to this point. (But if you do, please argue that.) (3) 6.3.4: While recursion is said to be disallowed, the "for which the complete definition has not been seen" is pretty odd for an XML specification, as it means that you need a full ordering for the elements in the document (or at least within the element). That means if some editor decodes from disk and then encodes to disk, you need to be sure that the order is preserved or else you break the "has been seen" constraint. (And if you do that, then you're allowing rules to mutually refer to one another, which brings us back to discuss point 2.) 7.4 maybe has a similar issue. I think for this you could simply state up front that these XML documents MUST NOT be re-ordered during editing. (Or else add some kind of attribute to help with ordering which seems ickky.) (4) section 12: I don't think this is at all sufficient. Missing aspects include: Imprecise LGRs could result in registration of identifiers that are unexpected in many other protocols, leading to new vulnerabilities; LGRs could be deliberately manipulated so as to create such imprecision, and if I could feed one such to a registry (e.g. via some nice friendly looking git repo) then I could exploit the vuln later for fun and profit - that seems to call for some interoperable form of data integrity and origin authentication (is the lager WG doing that?) and lastly (for now), the XML language defined here is very flexible as noted earlier - I would expect there to be many implementation bugs in new code that attempts to parse this language. So I think the security considerations needs to be re-done really. |
2016-04-21
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - 4.3.6: my bet: validity-end is a mistake. - 4.3.8: odd that the examples have no URLs - 4.3 generally: I bet that … [Ballot comment] - 4.3.6: my bet: validity-end is a mistake. - 4.3.8: odd that the examples have no URLs - 4.3 generally: I bet that these objects will evolve and will be stored in some VCS. I'm surprised so that there's no meta-data element to represent information about the version of say the previous instance of the object. If there were, then it would then be possible to establish a hash-chain which I'd have thought would be useful in disputes. - 5.3.1: "normally not only symmetric, but also transitive" - isn't that hugely ambiguous? What is the programmer supposed to do? The answer is "nothing" I think so I'd just recommend to delete that paragraph and say that only the explicitly stated rules apply. - 6.2.4: "repertoire" - please define that term or reference a definition. I don't think it's a commonly understood technical term, at least for implementers. - 8.2: What "suitable optimisations" do you mean? It seems cruel to the implementer to say that but not even have a reference. - 8.5: I think you could have explained this more clearly - the 2nd para there is not really useful as it's too opaque. - Appendix C: Another example of BNF being impressively more terse than XML :-) |
2016-04-21
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-04-21
|
11 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-04-20
|
11 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-04-20
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-04-20
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] IESG: if this document doesn't get any DISCUSSes and I am unable to call, I would like to have it in Approved::Point Raised … [Ballot comment] IESG: if this document doesn't get any DISCUSSes and I am unable to call, I would like to have it in Approved::Point Raised - Writeup Needed (or whatever the state is). My review comments sent to the WG: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lager/current/msg00312.html |
2016-04-20
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-04-20
|
11 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-04-20
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-04-20
|
11 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-04-20
|
11 | Ralph Droms | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ralph Droms. |
2016-04-19
|
11 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-04-19
|
11 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-04-19
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-04-19
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-04-18
|
11 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Linda Dunbar performed the opsdir review. |
2016-04-18
|
11 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-04-18
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-04-14
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ralph Droms |
2016-04-14
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ralph Droms |
2016-04-13
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | I expect a new revision to address my comments at some point. |
2016-04-13
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-04-11
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-04-10
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. |
2016-04-07
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] My review comments sent to the WG: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lager/current/msg00312.html |
2016-04-07
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-04-06
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Alexey Melnikov |
2016-04-04
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-04-04
|
11 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lager-specification-11.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lager-specification-11.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA must complete. First, in the Media Types registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ a new Media Type in the application subregistry will be created as follows: Name: lgr+xml Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in ns subregistry of the IETF XML Registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ a new URI will be registered as follows: ID: lgr-1.0 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lgr-1.0 Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. Third, a new registry is to be created called the Label Generation Ruleset Dispositions registry. This will be a new registry on the IANA Protocol Registries page located at: https://www.iana.org/protocols The new registry will contain two, new subregistries. The first of these will be the Standard Dispositions subregistry. This new subregistry will be managed through Specification Required as defined in RFC 5226. There are initial registrations in this new registry as follows: Disposition Description Reference -----------+----------------------------------------------------------------+-------------+ invalid The resulting string is not a valid label. This disposition [ RFC-to-be ] may be assigned implicitly, see Section 7.5 of [ RFC-to-be ]. No variant labels should be generated from a variant mapping with this type. blocked The resulting string is a valid label, but should be blocked [ RFC-to-be ] from registration. This would typically apply for a derived variant that is undesirable due to having no practical use or being confusingly similar to some other label. allocatable The resulting string should be reserved for use by the [ RFC-to-be ] same operator of the origin string, but not automatically allocated for use. activated The resulting string should be activated for use. (This [ RFC-to-be ] is the same as a preferred variant in [RFC3743].) valid The resultant string is a valid label. (This is the typical [ RFC-to-be ] default action if no dispositions are defined.) -----------+----------------------------------------------------------------+-------------+ The second subregistry will be the Private Dispositions subregistry. This new subregistry will be managed through First Come First Served as defined by RFC5226. The format of the registry is: Disposition Description/Purpose Reference/Registrant -----------+----------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------+ -----------+----------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------+ There are no initial registrations in the Private Dispositions subregistry. IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-03-24
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ralph Droms |
2016-03-24
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ralph Droms |
2016-03-23
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Derek Atkins. |
2016-03-21
|
11 | Barry Leiba | Ballot has been issued |
2016-03-21
|
11 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2016-03-21
|
11 | Barry Leiba | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-03-21
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-03-21
|
11 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-lager-specification@ietf.org, lager-chairs@ietf.org, audric.schiltknecht@viagenie.ca, "Audric Schiltknecht" , barryleiba@gmail.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-lager-specification@ietf.org, lager-chairs@ietf.org, audric.schiltknecht@viagenie.ca, "Audric Schiltknecht" , barryleiba@gmail.com, lager@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Representing Label Generation Rulesets using XML) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Label Generation Rules WG (lager) to consider the following document: - 'Representing Label Generation Rulesets using XML' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-04-11. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes a method of representing rules for validating identifier labels and alternate representations of those labels using Extensible Markup Language (XML). These policies, known as "Label Generation Rulesets" (LGRs), are used for the implementation of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), for example. The rulesets are used to implement and share that aspect of policy defining which labels and Unicode code points are permitted for registrations, which alternative code points are considered variants, and what actions may be performed on labels containing those variants. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lager-specification/ When IESG discussion begins, it can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lager-specification/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-03-21
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-03-21
|
11 | Barry Leiba | Last call was requested |
2016-03-21
|
11 | Barry Leiba | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-03-21
|
11 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-03-21
|
11 | Barry Leiba | Last call announcement was changed |
2016-03-21
|
11 | Barry Leiba | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-03-20
|
11 | Kim Davies | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-11.txt |
2016-03-17
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2016-03-17
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2016-03-15
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2016-03-15
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2016-03-13
|
10 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation |
2016-03-11
|
10 | Barry Leiba | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-04-21 |
2016-03-08
|
10 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-03-08
|
10 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-03-08
|
10 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-03-08
|
10 | Marc Blanchet | 1. Summary The document shepherd is Audric Schiltknecht. The responsible Area Director is Barry Leiba. This document describes a method of representing rules for … 1. Summary The document shepherd is Audric Schiltknecht. The responsible Area Director is Barry Leiba. This document describes a method of representing rules for validating identifier labels and alternate representations of those labels using Extensible Markup Language (XML). These policies, known as "Label Generation Rulesets" (LGRs), are used for the implementation of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), for example. The rulesets are used to implement and share that aspect of policy defining which labels and Unicode code points are permitted for registrations, which alternative code points are considered variants, and what actions may be performed on labels containing those variants. The document is seeking Standards Track as it is the normative specification on the format and processing of Label Generation Rulesets. 2. Review and Consensus The document was presented and discussed during at least two IETF meetings. It has the support of the WG, and there are at least three independent implementations of LGR processor with good coverage of WLE processing; the format described is already used in expressing Root Zone LGR for various writing systems. 3. Intellectual Property The authors have affirmed that they have no knowledge of any IPR associated to the document and are submitting it in compliance with BCPs 78 and 79. There was no on-list discussion of IPR matters and none were reported. 4. Other Points The document makes normative references to the Unicode Standard; these are correct and approved by the WG. The document requests two new registrations in existing IANA registries: - a new entry in the Media Type registry which has been reviewed by the media-types experts and comments have been integrated in the document; - a new entry in the XML registry for a new namespace. The document also requests the creation of a new IANA registry, to manage LGR dispositions. All requirements for such registry are met. The RFC Editor should be advised that the appendix tracking document changes should be deleted prior to publication. |
2016-03-08
|
10 | Marc Blanchet | Responsible AD changed to Barry Leiba |
2016-03-08
|
10 | Marc Blanchet | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-03-08
|
10 | Marc Blanchet | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-03-08
|
10 | Marc Blanchet | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-03-08
|
10 | Audric Schiltknecht | Changed document writeup |
2016-03-08
|
10 | Kim Davies | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-10.txt |
2016-03-01
|
09 | Marc Blanchet | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2016-03-01
|
09 | Marc Blanchet | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-03-01
|
09 | Marc Blanchet | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-03-01
|
09 | Marc Blanchet | Notification list changed to "Audric Schiltknecht" <audric.schiltknecht@viagenie.ca> |
2016-03-01
|
09 | Marc Blanchet | Document shepherd changed to Audric Schiltknecht |
2016-02-29
|
09 | Kim Davies | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-09.txt |
2016-02-04
|
08 | Kim Davies | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-08.txt |
2016-02-01
|
07 | Kim Davies | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-07.txt |
2015-12-11
|
06 | Kim Davies | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-06.txt |
2015-12-09
|
05 | Asmus Freytag | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-05.txt |
2015-10-18
|
04 | Asmus Freytag | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-04.txt |
2015-09-21
|
03 | Asmus Freytag | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-03.txt |
2015-09-01
|
02 | Asmus Freytag | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-02.txt |
2015-09-01
|
01 | Asmus Freytag | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-01.txt |
2015-08-07
|
00 | Naveen Khan | This document now replaces draft-davies-idntables instead of None |
2015-08-07
|
00 | Kim Davies | New version available: draft-ietf-lager-specification-00.txt |